Open Blog #2

Last week I attended a lecture prepared by Dr. Richard Hilderman titled "Climate Reality" that was organized by S.A.G.E. and promoted by G.L.E.A. Dr. Hilderman was a professor at Clemson University and has been giving this speech for many years. He updates it frequently to illustrate even more, the drastic effects humans are having on the environment. In this lecture he covered many topics that are relevant to global warming and the burning of fossil fuels, such as the ocean acidification, rising water levels, decline in agriculture and loss of life. He highlighted the significant impact human are having on natural geologic cycles and that the speed with which they are now occurring is extremely dangerous. To supplement this depressing information he did expand upon solutions to the planet’s carbon dioxide problem through alternative fuels.

            In my Environmental Science class we have also been covering a topic Dr. Hilderman touched upon-ocean acidification. The drastic effects of this carbon-related issue are not well known because it is not visible to most humans. The general public has been informed that the ocean sequesters carbon, a beneficial function that decreases atmospheric concentrations. However, the increasing surge of carbon into the air has had dire consequences on the pH of the ocean. The rising acidity is preventing some organisms from forming their shells and in some cases it is dissolving them. This is major concern for the stability of food chains and for the future of human seafood consumption because this issue is most prevalent where fishing is most profitable.

            While there are many greenhouse gases and sustainability problems carbon is still a leading contributor, affecting more areas and other resources that we are not yet fully aware of. The decrease in carbon dioxide emissions should still be a main concern. 

Open Blog #1

I have viewed Food Inc. as part of previous courses and the message has never left such an impression on me before. This semester my English class discussed The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. While many people interpret that novel as a an expose on the meat packing industry, I truly saw the unsanitary mistreatment of meat products as a metaphor for the labor of the meat packing industry. I convinced myself that all those hygienic, abuse issues with the animals and meat products themselves were resolved. Viewing this video again after my recent experience interpreting that novel and discussing the Monsanto legal disputes the past couple of weeks in Environmental Science 202, my opinion has made a 360 in a matter of minutes. Agriculture is where I see my major in Environmental Science taking me. While I hoped to see the transformation of the industry for the better in terms of pesticides, crop rotations, conservative tilling practices and many other resourceful methods implemented through strict regulation and standardization in order to protect individual farmers without harming food security, local farming proves it is truly the perfect solution. Unfortunately, until that time I will have to try harder to find local farmers, especially meat farmers. I will have to make it through meal plan for only a couple more weeks and figure out a way to support myself locally next year. I’m just extremely pleased with my decision to order a vegetarian burrito before this class.

Blog #13

What do you think of ecofemisnism before you read, and after? Did you have any strong reactions? What do forms of dominance do you see in the world around you? 

            Before looking at the readings my impression of ecofeminism is one of irrelevance. I don’t see much need for distinguishing between genders socially to achieve some sort of environmental realization. I think the more genders and races for that matter are distinguished, the more attention we are bringing to the more we are creating the so called “inequality.” This reminds of our discussion during the spiritual ecology lecture when we got into having male gods and male dominated religions. I have always recognized my God is male; however, I don’t let that define Him. People, who point out the differences, I feel, are looking for them.

            Earth is defined as a woman, mother nature or Gaia. However, I don’t see how this perspective can be used to blame men for the destruction of the planet. The article on Vanadana stated she relates monoculture to male dominance with no support to back those claims and that this makes her an ecofeminist as defined by someone resistant to abuse of women or mother nature. There seems to be no logical progression of thought here and I don’t find their presentation of information very legitimate. I appreciate her work; however the connection seems to have been made with questionable motivations.

            I do agree with part of the article on the green fuse that states ecofeminists believe women should aim for liberation as women. This is similar to an argument I made in an earlier blog about how equality is best reached when people appreciate everyone’s roles, not seek to infiltrate them.

            I definitely see dominance in the world, including between men and women; however, I see the reasoning behind it and approach to solving it often as a fight of point the finger or pushing the blame on someone else. There is certainly dominance in business or across developing and underdeveloped countries. The gender division presented in the Lego video definitely presented a side that seemed to put boys’ creativity and development over girls’. Unfortunately, I saw this as just another example of the unequal appreciation of feminine and masculine tasks. It did seem that the buildings in the girl’s lego world were not as involved, but if they were, what is wrong with a bakery lego building? Are there not bakers in this world? Do they not enjoy their work? Are they not valued in society? Are there not male bakers? Yes, the Hogwarts theme sees great. I love Harry Potter. You certainly don’t have to be a boy to enjoy it and it is upsetting that it is seen as a male product.

Blog #12

Would you join the Green Party or not? What aspects of green values do you believe should be ideally incorporated into a "green" party? Do these align, do you think, with the Green Party? Also, are the Earth First! activists justified in their actions?

 

I believe green values have already been incorporated into the Green Party according to the readings. The Four Pillars borrowed from the German green party certainly reflect green values, such as ecological wisdom and non-violence, but also do a good job making them relevant to politics with grass roots democracy and social justice. The four sets of two added by the American Green Party to complete the Ten Key Values similarly following green values we have discussed in this course. The feminist values along with more local and regionalized economics to achieve global responsibility are all instrumental in green values. The article went on to discuss the party’s debate over social and deep ecology. I believe all these aspects of the Green party imitate green values very well and seem to fit smoothly with a political agenda. If each pillar or value is sought after rationally and reasonably I think the party would have a lot of success and I would consider joining it; however, there are certainly areas where motives could become skewed or actions taken too far that may turn people away from the party.

I do not think Earth First! is justified in their actions of monkeywrenching. I think any form of vandalism or sabotage is an immature and reckless form of protest that shows an equal amount of disrespect towards the business/company they are attacking. I do not think it is right that so many resources and so much money and jobs should be put at risk because of an individual’s selfish agenda. If they are concerned, intelligent and thoughtful enough they can do it appropriately. A movement to save the environment can’t be headed by such destructive people. If they want their ideas and opinions to be respected and considered by the government or private businesses then they should show some.

Blog #11

    What religion were you raised with and how does that affect your view of spiritual ecology? What are your opinions on the Gaia Hypothesis? Do you agree or disagree? Do you believe we live in a hyper-masculine culture? If so, how do you see it changing?

            I was raised of a Catholic faith and I don’t think is significantly affected my view of spiritual ecology. In my own church, the ideals of spiritual ecology were not preached; however, it may just be that I was not informed or aware of this type of thought as I am now and did not interpret the priests’ message as it was intended to be at the time. In the reading on Pope Benedict’s focus for the celebration of the World Day of Peace I was pleased that it was on protecting creation, “mother earth”, following suit Pope John Paul II from 20 years before. Although, while I may not have been directly instructed on spiritual ecology in my religion, the overall beliefs and attitude I derived regarding my own behavior definitely have been applied to my position pertaining to the environment around me.

              I do find the Gaia Hypothesis to be a very probable one. It seems almost logical that the life of a system should determine the composition of the system and not the other way around. It is a difficult proposition to support, because you would keep coming back to “which came first, the chicken, or the egg?” It’s possible the a life form came to be that sustained itself on certain bodily processes that would affect the surrounding atmosphere; however, there is the uncertainty of how it could come to be without that property there to allow that bodily function to start.
            Regarding a hyper-masculine society, I do see some inequality, but not one that defines our culture in such a way. I think women want to see more feminine involvement in, so far, male dominated activity. However, I feel that men and women are equally skilled at different things and until each person can see the value in their own and each other’s skill as being equal people will believe society is hyper-masculine.

Blog #10

What is Social Ecology? What are your reactions to the readings? What forms of hierarchy are in our world today? Are these hierarchies natural? Are there any better alternatives?

             Through what I have gained from the text, social ecology is the understanding and recognition that environmental problems arise from social issues. Some people find this a degrading perspective on the environment, believing there are more pressing reasons to protect our resources and Earth; however, social opportunities are the main interaction and communication between people to share opinions, ideas, beliefs, regulations, ect. Social ecology attributes this communication and its ineffectiveness to the creation of a class hierarchy within nations and across the globe. Developed nation vs developing nation struck me as the most prominent hierarchy that currently exists in the world and that is having the most profound impact on the environment.
            These hierarchies are not natural in the evolutionary standpoint of natural selection, genetics, ancestry or mutations that can allow a species or individual to have more success, reproductive or otherwise, and dominate another. However, in a system founded on economic principles, as ours is, it is natural. While I do believe that every person should be on an even playing field, I feel that this understanding can be held by every individual on a personal level and simply not be measured by wealth or status. Every role is important, but unfortunately every role will not reap the same rewards. It only takes the satisfaction of the individual with their own life, belongings, ect. to see that the hierarchy isn’t as defined. The hierarchy doesn’t have to be destroyed, just its perception.

Blog #9

Explain your view on deep ecology. How can you relate these views to your lifestyle or society? Which principle do you agree most with and which do you agree least with? Why? What concerns do you have about Deep Ecology?

According the readings I agree with Arne Naess and the definition of his term “deep ecology” in the sense that humans should become more receptive to the world around them and ask deeper questions. Those deeper questions should be framed in such a way that we learn why and how, not just what. I also agree with the notion that humans are not isolated or any more important than the rest of nature.

            In Owen’s “The Science of Ecology” he stresses a way of thinking that makes arriving at the most efficient solution to solving the world’s current environmental problems that I feel expands upon Arne Naess’s idea that humans are not separate from nature. This is a familiar sentiment in most green thinking. Why then, should man-made objects such as construction be seen any different? We construct buildings to live in just as animals create their habitat out of the environment. This way of thinking will not promote destruction of the environment, but encourage a mindset that considers all projects in a more direct relationship to its surroundings. I feel that this shows there can be a balance between technology and ecological movements. The two do not have to be exclusive and this fits with my belief and lifestyle very well. However, I did sense from some of the reading that while in theory, this can be a relatively harmless practice, in actuality, those instituting the actions of deep ecology have much more extreme uses in mind.